It seems like the National Organization for Marriage has a glass jaw.
Last week, I posted an expose of sorts about the Ruth Institute, a "project" of the National Organization for Marriage whose main goal appears to be reversing the gains of the women's liberation movement to ensure that they stay home and bear children instead so that a replacement birth rate can be maintained among...shall we say...the right type of people.
That post spawned a series of impassioned responses from Ruth Institute leader Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (indeed, DailyKos now has its own tag on the Ruth Institute blog, thereby taking its place alongside other pernicious topics such as "cohabitation" and "Canada"). Presumably, the post here was so shocking in its content that Dr. Morse was too emotionally distraught to come up with a systematic response, but was, rather, compelled by circumstance to feverishly compose a stream of incoherent rebuttals in an order that only James Joyce could love. But from among all of these responses, there's one in particular that deserves special attention--it's entitled "Ruth's Real Aims."
Dr. Morse has a problem: it's very hard to refute an argument that's based substantially on confidential internal documents. Dr. Morse, therefore, isn't able to say that my statements about the sexist intentions of her organization are incorrect. The only recourse she has, rather, is to defend her own sexism in a way whose hypocrisy could only be exceeded by George Rekers railing against gay prostitution:
And I am a sexist, according to Dante, because, “The real mission of the Ruth Institute is to erase the gains that women have made with regard to their social, economic and sexual liberation and ensure that they become baby factories.” Dante evidently has missed the fact that many, many women, are fed up with the sexual revolution, the divorce revolution and all the false promises of Leftist Feminism. The fact is that the trends toward increasing labor force participation for married women and increasing higher education for women were under way well before Betty Friedan ever showed up to steer the whole conversation in the destructive direction that Leftist feminism has taken.
See, in Dr. Morse's opinion, it's not sexist of her to advocate that women's economic and social advances be rolled back. Why? Because many women actively want take on what one could call a traditional domestic role. That is definitely true: many women do actively seek that role, just as there are many men who actively desire the corresponding role of economic provider. What Dr. Morse seems to want, by contrast, is to force all women to reject the technological, medical and social advances that guaranteed their freedom to choose something else. And why? Because her main concern is, of course, birthing children ahead of the replacement rate of 2.1 per woman, and active Western wombs are apparently the only method for the purpose. After all, Dr. Morse doesn't even consider immigration as a potential solution for the aging population and social services issues that she seems so concerned about. One can wonder if she herself has met this very personal goal, or if she has been too busy advancing her career to fulfill her duty to her civilization.
And why should women subscribe to this ideology? Because in Dr. Morse's mind, they are inherently weak:
It is easier for the woman if she has a partner; it is better for the child to have the love and support of both parents; it is better for the man to be connected with his offspring, taking responsibility for their support and protection, rather than leaving the woman to fend for herself, or rather than being ejected from the family home. What about this doesn’t poor Dante understand?
Notice the watchwords: men need to offer their "support and protection" or else the weak woman will have to "fend for herself"--apparently, after "ejecting" her man from the family home through that oh-so-despicable practice of no-fault divorce, which the Ruth Institute decries in the same vein as pornography and same-sex marriage. In Dr. Morse's mind, it's as clear as day: weak women are supposed to hitch themselves to a man who will protect them, bear his children--preferably more than 2.1 of them--and never be able to leave if she wishes to pursue her own independent dreams.
And if you wanted any more evidence on how much Dr. Morse hates the idea of women controlling their own bodies, all you need to do is read up on everything the Ruth Institute bloggers--including Dr. Morse herself--have to say about The Pill, which she would seemingly like to eradicate because it disconnects sex from procreation and marriage.
The ultimate irony, of course, is that just like many other conservatives who want to use government to control people's lives the way they see fit, Dr. Morse hypocritically ascribes the same intentions to me:
That is because in the Leftist fantasy world, the relationship between men and women is a special case of class conflict, as Engels argued: “the husband is the bourgeois, and the wife represents the proletariat.” Male and female are primarily political categories, not biological categories. And the differences between men and women are evidence of cosmic injustice. All sex differences have to be wiped out, as an act of social justice. Conservatives and libertarians take note: This leftist formula is more than moral posturing or empty rhetoric. Since differences between men and women actually exist and will assert themselves, the Left is writing itself a blank check for unlimited government intervention into the lives of ordinary people.
Ironic, isn't it? The Ruth Institute wants to ban no-fault divorce. They want to ban same-sex marriage. They apparently want to ban the Pill. They want the government, in fact, to do all sorts of social engineering to make sure that women revert to being baby factories to generate Western babies at a replacement rate. And we fevered "leftists," by contrast? All we want is to make sure that each individual has the freedom to choose his or her own destiny.
In Dr. Morse's mind, that type of freedom is far too much for her fellow women to handle. But as a progressive man who loves strong, smart and capable women, I respectfully beg to differ.
